United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER & REASONS
the Court are Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, R. Docs. 6
& 7. Plaintiffs respond in opposition, R. Docs. 12 &
13. Having heard oral argument and considered the
parties' briefs and the applicable law, the Court issues
this Order & Reasons.
N'Orleans Po'Boy Place LLC (“NOPP”) and
N'Orleans Krewe Kitchen LLC (“NOKK”) bring
this lawsuit against Defendants for alleged violations of
business agreements, the Louisiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act,
and the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law. R. Doc. 1-1 at 10-11. Plaintiffs allege that
since 2015 they have been working to develop a New Orleans
themed restaurant franchise. R. Doc. 1-1 at 3. Plaintiffs
allege that in 2016 they began working with Defendants
Culinary Construction Co, LLC (“CCCo”) and DavCo
Restaurants LLC (“DavCo”) to develop and market
the restaurants. R. Doc. 1-1 at 3-4. Plaintiffs entered into
agreements with CCCo and DavCo in 2016. R. Doc. 1-1 at 4.
During this period Plaintiffs disclosed proprietary
information to CCCo and DavCo. R. Doc. 1-1 at 5.
now allege that Defendants CCCo and DavCo have terminated
business dealings with Plaintiffs and are using
Plaintiffs' proprietary information to open a restaurant
substantially identical to the restaurant developed by
Plaintiffs. R. Doc. 1-1 at 9. Plaintiffs allege that these
actions violate their business agreements, the Louisiana
Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and the Louisiana Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law. R. Doc. 1-1 at 10-11.
In addition to damages, Plaintiffs seek a temporary
restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief. R. Doc. 1-1 at 11.
originally filed this lawsuit in state court. R. Doc. 1.
Plaintiffs' request for a TRO was denied by the state
court on May 16, 2018. R. Doc. 1-1 at 18-19. Defendant DavCo
removed the case to this Court based on diversity
jurisdiction on May 25, 2018. R. Doc. 1.
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction/Motion to Transfer (R. Doc. 6)
DavCo NOPP, LLC (“DavCo NOPP”) and DavCo NOLA,
LLC (“DavCo NOLA”) move to dismiss the claims
against them for lack of personal jurisdiction or in the
alternative transfer the claims to the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland. R. Doc. 6. First,
Defendants DavCo NOPP and DavCo NOLA argue that this Court
lacks personal jurisdiction over them. R. Doc. 6-1 at 8.
DavCo NOPP argues that it does not have sufficient contacts
with Louisiana to establish specific jurisdiction because its
only contacts are entering into an agreement with a Louisiana
entity and having some representative visit Louisiana. R.
Doc. 6-1 at 10-11. DavCo NOLA argues that it does not have
sufficient contacts with Louisiana to establish specific
jurisdiction because Plaintiffs have not alleged that it has
any contacts with Louisiana. R Doc. 6-1 at 9.
Defendants DavCo NOPP and DavCo NOLA argue in the alternative
that this Court should transfer the claims to Maryland. R.
Doc. 6-1 at 16. They argue that the restaurant at issue is
located in Maryland, the evidence and witnesses are located
in Maryland, DavCo NOPP and DavCo NOLA are located in
Maryland, and Maryland has more interest in the case than
Louisiana. R. Doc. 6-1 at 16-17.
respond in opposition. R. Doc. 12. Plaintiffs argue that this
Court can find specific jurisdiction over Defendants DavCo
NOPP and DavCo NOLA because they “pursued a business
relationship” with Plaintiffs in Louisiana and the
restaurant is New Orleans themed. R. Doc. 12 at 14.
Plaintiffs also argue that the Court can impute the contacts
of the individual Defendants, who are the owners/operators of
Defendants DavCo NOPP and DavCO NOLA, under the alter ego
theory. R. Doc. 12 at 15. Plaintiffs ask if the Court needs
more information that it allow for discovery on the issue of
personal jurisdiction. R. Doc. 12 at 18.
Defendants' Partial 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc.
DavCo NOPP and DavCo NOLA move to dismiss several of
Plaintiffs' claims against them for failure to state a
claim. R. Doc. 7. ...